"I've always been mystified how people worshiping a deity who was tortured to death can be the staunchest supporters of torture."

I think you need to leave your baggage at the door. It's effecting your reading comprehension.

Your post was, as I said, a rewording of what I wrote. I wasn't being clever, I was pointing it out to you. But hey, if you think agreeing with me is the worst thing in the world, it's not going to hurt my feelings. Plenty of people here would rather slash their own wrists than be caught agreeing with anything I say.

Nice try.

But how about something along the lines "I've always been mystified how some people worshiping a deity who was tortured to death can be the staunchest supporters of torture."

That would have had a much clearer implication that you weren't referring to all the people who worshiped a deity -- assuming that people are inclined to believe you. Which based on your history - I would be willing to bet isn't the case.

You are splitting hairs. You can assume I'm saying something bad... but you can't assume that SOME people CAN BE a certain way?

Puh-leeze.

Hey, if you want to be a permanent contrarian to everything I say, at least be honest about it. Others are, so at least you will have company. But your flopping and silly defense of your bias just makes you look silly.

Hey, if you want to be a permanent contrarian to everything I say, at least be honest about it. Others are, so at least you will have company. But your flopping and silly defense of your bias just makes you look silly.

If I had an issue with you - I wouldn't waste time discussing it with you - I'd just create a rule on the server to automatically redirect any requests from you to www.christianity.com.

Yeppers - Christian leaders are human and as such there is plenty of evidence that they can hold stupid and prejudiced beliefs. But of course - many non-christians of this same time held the exact same beliefs about slaves - so let's not try and paint a distorted picture - shall we? Society in general was at fault - not just a religious group.

This just goes back to my main issues with your arguments. I don't disagree with you that the Church has done things wrong at times or that there are people who are Christian that believe and do things that are evil. And Yes the republican party has tried to represent themselves as the "religious" party and yet all the while do things that show contempt for human rights and make decisions based solely on their own greed.

All those things are accurate and wrong (in the moral sense)

But you keep using those few examples to try and paint a much broader brush across the entire group of people and that's just as offensive because it's just prejudice.

El, I liked the way you used examples to back up Unbreakable's tactics, but I'm going to move to disagree with the statement above.

If we were in the 900-1900's, I'd have to say your tone would be different. The relativity of your perspective comes from a life where church is somewhat distanced from state. We have truly entered a new area where agnostic belief is something which doesn't have communities turning their backs on you; 100 years ago that was most certainly NOT the case. Most "Christian" nations weren't cultivated; they were conquered. South America, North America, the Phillipenes, Africa. Where is the gentle hand of God in those actions? I mean, were the Crusades so much fun they decided to go back a few more times?

Muddying the waters of law and society moral values with the major sect or religion of a region is an easy way to influence the law of a society; in influencing you gain power. The church(es) have been the most successful businesses and governing bodies in the past 4000 years. I fail to see how the treatment of serfs is any different than that of the slaves; they weren't bought or sold but the value of their life was measured with productive output. Since society was so intertwined in religion, it also has to bear the weight of responsibility for the actions done in their name.

There's a reason that people would apply to be eunichs (and die in their oh-so-gentle methods)... and it wasn't because they got in the way for their jogging hobby. Having your testes removed was a fairly simple way to get a well paying job and move from the have-nots to the haves. Getting into the church was a big step in one's life.

It was a way out of a miserable life where your entire world; your government, your faith and your community tell you to not worry about this life and instead suffer with horrid conditions as an unsung martyr (following in Christ's footsteps) to gain salvation in the next one. It's funny how the ruling classes in the church didn't necessarily ever get to experience the suffering they sold from the pulpit.

Just to be clear: I am not a Christian, nor do I hold the word Christ as God in reverence or contempt. I believe Christ existed, and that he dedicated his entire life to making the world better for the poor as the Judean ruling class would refuse the sick among the pure.

I think the world missed his point.

edit: PS: Are you frustrated with how violence is acceptable but seeing any sort of sexual content is bad? Where do you think this is born? The religious values of christianity is still influencing us today to the point where we need to re-evaluate how brutal killing is something that is labelled and acceptable but intimacy and the human form is repressed.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 09:14:41 PM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Yeppers - Christian leaders are human and as such there is plenty of evidence that they can hold stupid and prejudiced beliefs. But of course - many non-christians of this same time held the exact same beliefs about slaves - so let's not try and paint a distorted picture - shall we? Society in general was at fault - not just a religious group.

This just goes back to my main issues with your arguments. I don't disagree with you that the Church has done things wrong at times or that there are people who are Christian that believe and do things that are evil. And Yes the republican party has tried to represent themselves as the "religious" party and yet all the while do things that show contempt for human rights and make decisions based solely on their own greed.

All those things are accurate and wrong (in the moral sense)

But you keep using those few examples to try and paint a much broader brush across the entire group of people and that's just as offensive because it's just prejudice.

El, I liked the way you used examples to back up Unbreakable's tactics, but I'm going to move to disagree with the statement above.

thanks

Yes the church was tied too strongly with the government (a recipe for disaster with any religion).

But i guess the question goes back to a fundamental (and unanswerable one) -- is it that Governments are corrupt and thus they corrupted the church or is that any religion that obtains the power to control laws over non-believers corrupts itself?

edit: PS: Are you frustrated with how violence is acceptable but seeing any sort of sexual content is bad? Where do you think this is born? The religious values of christianity is still influencing us today to the point where we need to re-evaluate how brutal killing is something that is labelled and acceptable but intimacy and the human form is repressed.

I think that this is still a society level influence. Our society at large has come to accept violence over time but still views sexual content as taboo (however that is changing rapidly)

A good example of society changing is the sudden social acceptance of girls kissing girls. Yes - this has been going on for ages. But there has been a pretty radical shift in society in the last generation where this has become such a socially acceptable thing that most girls under the age of 23 admit to having tried it just for fun or for attention. I even know of a church in my area that decided to do a special teaching on it to their youth because it had become a common thing with the girls in the junior high and high school groups.

Go back 20 years ago and while that kind of stuff occurred - it wasn't considered socially acceptable and thus wasn't glorified like it is today.

I'm not saying this is wrong or anything - I'm just using it as an example of how some things change to be more acceptable within our society and even have an influence into the Church.

But i guess the question goes back to a fundamental (and unanswerable one) -- is it that Governments are corrupt and thus they corrupted the church or is that any religion that obtains the power to control laws over non-believers corrupts itself?

That's a chicken/egg question. Religion is a power structure, and thus in that respect it's the exact same thing as a government- it's a way of exerting control over people. It isn't that government or religion (or corporations or chess clubs or whatever) are susceptible to corruption, it's that any power structure is.

edit: PS: Are you frustrated with how violence is acceptable but seeing any sort of sexual content is bad? Where do you think this is born? The religious values of christianity is still influencing us today to the point where we need to re-evaluate how brutal killing is something that is labelled and acceptable but intimacy and the human form is repressed.

I think that this is still a society level influence. Our society at large has come to accept violence over time but still views sexual content as taboo (however that is changing rapidly)

A good example of society changing is the sudden social acceptance of girls kissing girls. Yes - this has been going on for ages. But there has been a pretty radical shift in society in the last generation where this has become such a socially acceptable thing that most girls under the age of 23 admit to having tried it just for fun or for attention. I even know of a church in my area that decided to do a special teaching on it to their youth because it had become a common thing with the girls in the junior high and high school groups.

Go back 20 years ago and while that kind of stuff occurred - it wasn't considered socially acceptable and thus wasn't glorified like it is today.

I'm not saying this is wrong or anything - I'm just using it as an example of how some things change to be more acceptable within our society and even have an influence into the Church.

Many "under twenty-three's" do other things for fun too (sometimes illegal). I don't think that them kissing another girl had anything to do with rebelling; it's an experiment that has been taboo for so long, much in the same vein as a "just legal" person living to drink for the next year. If they had been exposed and allowed to experience it at different times you wouldn't have the culture shock that occurs when all of their peers experience the same new thing, and do stupid things.

Repression simply builds pressure. The fact that prostitution is illegal is beyond comprehension. Sex sells, but one cannot solicit to sell sex. Sex only sells because we, as a Christian based culture, have repressed our sexual natures to the point where guys aren't even comfortable with showing their "private parts" in a change room... wait, can we just say penis? If we were more open about sexuality, the sometimes erotic advertising media wouldn't hold as much sway on the consumer. They are selling us what we want, but are afraid to talk about.

Prostitution should be legal, and therefore protect those who chose that line of work. Imagine going to a sexual therapist (rather than whore) for training? I mean, you can train for everything else, right? You can watch sunday night sex shows about performance, but you are labelled a pervert if you talk about sexuality as if it's in the very room with us. Say hello to Sexuality, they flew all the way in to be here. Don't be rude, address it directly. It's not a wee-wee or a yoo-hoo. They have names, damnit. Just because Sexuality and human nature are intertwined doesn't mean that it needs to be erotic. And if someone gets aroused they shouldn't feel uncomfortable with it; they need to realize, just like with any social interaction, that there is a time and place for things. The problem is that the Church's influence on society has cramped that part of us for so long that labels like whore, slut, and pervert are labels we are trained to affix to US by US, and if we don't then it's justification. The weakest link in our chain is self-confidence when it comes to sexuality, and it affects a fuckton of our lives. Promiscuity and comfort with ones sexual nature just means they don't have us by the balls anymore, so-to-speak. The dick and fart jokes fade to a dull roar, and we all grow up a little. Does that mean they stop? Hell no... just not beaten to death.

Just to be clear: Government shouldn't care if girls kiss each other. Government shouldn't care if boys kiss each other. Government should only cares about their rights to be themselves, and to know how to tax the gay/lesbian citizens so they get full and equal treatment. Imagine if we lived in a society where we had a predominantly population, and since you and your wife were (obviously) not in that situation that she wouldn't be eligible as a spouse to your workplace benefits such as dental and healthcare? That is a reality that most gay couples live with.

This is what happens when religion goes unchecked for so long- and note that this is from yesterday. Imagine a world where zealotry had a crowd to hide in :

« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 02:42:30 PM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Mormons follow the teachings of Jesus Christ don't they? Doesn't that make them Christians? Sure they added their own book, but if the Bible was so cut and clear, why can't even a baptist and a presbyterian agree?

Mormons follow the teachings of Jesus Christ don't they? Doesn't that make them Christians? Sure they added their own book, but if the Bible was so cut and clear, why can't even a baptist and a presbyterian agree?

Found this with a quick google search that seems like it answers that question well

Mormons follow the teachings of Jesus Christ don't they? Doesn't that make them Christians? Sure they added their own book, but if the Bible was so cut and clear, why can't even a baptist and a presbyterian agree?

Found this with a quick google search that seems like it answers that question well

It doesn't answer anything. It's written from a very biased point of view, much like you'll find Catholics writing that Protestants are not Christians and vice versa (hey, just look at this thread!). Much like I know Baptists who believe that no one else is a Christian because they don't get that extra baptism. Sorry, they don't get to decide who's in "the club". This discussion is akin to the "blacks are sub-humans and not real human" argument - a viewpoint born out of bias, fear and ignorance.

The simple definition of Christianity - the main prerequisite - is a faith centered around the teachings of Jesus Christ, the (as Christians would believe) the son of God and the source of salvation. Now there are many more tenents that are applicable, but that's the #1 prerequisite. And the LDS faith most definitely falls into that category. Period, no discussion needed.

Of course, some Christians will try to deny that. One reason is that many believe (even if this belief is not entirely expressed) that THEIR version of Christianity is the "true one" and that everyone else is fucked. I remember walking into a Sunday School class and seeing a poster trying to define "true" Christianity and how to identify a cult. If taken literally, only what that particular church taught would be "true" Christianity...entirely laughable. That's one reason why you see the interdenominational (and intradenominiational) squabbling. Churches are like other big organizations - they exist for their own benefit. And exclusion is still a powerful tool in order to keep the faithful (or sheep, as some would say) from straying from the flock.

Another reason is that the Mormon's differing beliefs (which are fairly minor in the scheme of things) give some other Christians heartburn. The Book of Mormon is denied amongst other faiths and the old sterotypes of Mormons being a bunch of bigamist perverts still prevails. It's unfortunate, since some of the Mormon souls I've met are probably more true to the teachings of Jesus Christ than most other people who call themselves Christian. Much like the Jehovah's Witnesses I've gotten to know (a religion which many evangelical Christians call a cult and deny is a "Christian" religion, another laughable claim).

Of course, this discussion of "who is a true believer" isn't unique to the Christian faith. Islamic wars are continually fought over whether Sunni or Shi'a Islam is the true faith and Conservatives in Israel have been trying to get restrictive "who is a Jew" laws passed for years. Frankly, I find all of these are born of ignorance and bigotry and extremely distasteful. Man, in his limited wisdom, doesn't get to define who can call themselves Christian, Jewish, Muslim or anything else. Simply put, only God has the final answer on these issues.

It doesn't answer anything. It's written from a very biased point of view, much like you'll find Catholics writing that Protestants are not Christians and vice versa (hey, just look at this thread!).

Hmmm - just don't see how you could arrive at that conclusion - the article is not quoting denominational differences - but rather based on things that are accepted by all "christian" churches and taught by the bible as in this quote:

Quote

Conclusion: The above points in italics constitute the common gospel believed by all orthodox Christians through the ages regardless of denominational labels. On the other hand, some new religions such as Mormonism claim to be Christian, but accept as Scripture writings outside of the Bible, teach doctrines that contradict the Bible, and hold to beliefs completely foreign to the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.

Mormons share with orthodox Christians some important moral precepts from the Bible. However, the above points are examples of the many fundamental and irreconcilable differences between historic, biblical Christianity and Mormonism. While these differences do not keep us from being friendly with Mormons, we cannot consider them brothers and sisters in Christ.

It even references statements from five different Christian Denominations (both protestants and catholic). So I'm having a hard time seeing it as biased.

Quote from: Blackadar on January 25, 2008, 01:56:45 PM

The simple definition of Christianity - the main prerequisite - is a faith centered around the teachings of Jesus Christ, the (as Christians would believe) the son of God and the source of salvation. Now there are many more tenents that are applicable, but that's the #1 prerequisite. And the LDS faith most definitely falls into that category. Period, no discussion needed.

Again I think the article answered this question as well:

Quote

The Bible specifically warns of false prophets who will teach "another gospel" centered around "another Jesus," and witnessed to by "another spirit" (2 Corinthians 11:4,13-15; Galatians 1:6-9). Based on the evidence presented above, we believe Mormonism represents just such a counterfeit gospel.

Quote from: Blackadar on January 25, 2008, 01:56:45 PM

Of course, some Christians will try to deny that. One reason is that many believe (even if this belief is not entirely expressed) that THEIR version of Christianity is the "true one" and that everyone else is fucked. I remember walking into a Sunday School class and seeing a poster trying to define "true" Christianity and how to identify a cult. If taken literally, only what that particular church taught would be "true" Christianity...entirely laughable. That's one reason why you see the interdenominational (and intradenominiational) squabbling. Churches are like other big organizations - they exist for their own benefit. And exclusion is still a powerful tool in order to keep the faithful (or sheep, as some would say) from straying from the flock.

Certainly not arguing that there are chuches that use such things as a form of control. But there is a fairly big difference between denominational differences which are usually based on interpretation differences (i.e is it okay to be sprinkled with water for baptism or do you have to submerged? How do you reconcile the concepts of pre-destination vs. man's free will? Did the gifts of the holy spirit such as tongues pass away or are they available today) vs. teachings that clearly go against what is taught in the bible.

Quote from: Blackadar on January 25, 2008, 01:56:45 PM

It's unfortunate, since some of the Mormon souls I've met are probably more true to the teachings of Jesus Christ than most other people who call themselves Christian. Much like the Jehovah's Witnesses I've gotten to know (a religion which many evangelical Christians call a cult and deny is a "Christian" religion, another laughable claim).

But the point at issue - isn't whether someone is a good person or a spiritual person. It's based on whether or not a person that believes things that are in blatant contradiction to the Bible and the teaching of Jesus - can be considered a Christian.

But the point at issue - isn't whether someone is a good person or a spiritual person. It's based on whether or not a person that believes things that are in blatant contradiction to the Bible and the teaching of Jesus - can be considered a Christian.

I'm sure I can find more...those were just my first 3 searches. Get the point? Simply put, each organization has a vested interest in saying they are the "true" way and/or limiting their view of what a Christian really is. They don't get to decide who gets to join their club. The only way is to define "Christianity" itself and unless you actively target Mormons as non-Christians in your definition, you can't do so and exclude the Mormon faith. They're called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for a REASON...

They would say yes they are, I presume, but I'm not sure they use the term (I had two Elders over last night for dinner (and a nice chianti pff pff pff pff pff) but I didn't think to ask. However, even a cursory examination of the doctrinal differences and the Mormon church's dramatic (and idolotrous) departure from Biblical principal should lead to the conclusion that they are not.

The simple definition of Christianity - the main prerequisite - is a faith centered around the teachings of Jesus Christ, the (as Christians would believe) the son of God and the source of salvation. Now there are many more tenents that are applicable, but that's the #1 prerequisite. And the LDS faith most definitely falls into that category. Period, no discussion needed.

They do not do as you assert. And suggesting my ignorance on the matter does nothing to bolster your incorrect position as I am neither ignorant of mormonism nor are you accurate in your generalized applications of their beliefs as compatible with Christianity.

If mormons did adhere to the teachings of Christ, they would never state that he is Satan's spiritual brother, that they ascend to godhood and God was formerly another man on another planet, that one must wear special underwear to achieve sanctification and that in order to get into heaven you have to know the secret handshake.

As for promoting bigotry, how does stating that they are not Christian promote bigotry? In fact, based on the frequent participants of these forums , saying someone is not Christian should actually improve their standing here...so leave the buzzwords out of it.

El, BlackAdar has a point. Defining Christianity based on common teachings and then excluding a faith based on their exception of that commonality in no way proves it as being true.

To use one of your logical statements:

All the recognized Christian faiths believe blue is the best color; since they don't they are not Christian.

If our society was one of cannibalism the movie Alive would have been dinner theatre. Basing rigid allowances on your own prejudices in no way makes them more valid than any other. I know you try to be objective, but in this instance I think it's falling a bit short.

Quote from: dictionary.com's definition of Christian

linkChris·tian /ˈkrɪstʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kris-chuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith. 2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country. 3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades. 4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity. 5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial. 6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian. –noun 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. 8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian. 9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren. 10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. 11. a male given name.

But the point at issue - isn't whether someone is a good person or a spiritual person. It's based on whether or not a person that believes things that are in blatant contradiction to the Bible and the teaching of Jesus - can be considered a Christian.

I'm sure I can find more...those were just my first 3 searches. Get the point? Simply put, each organization has a vested interest in saying they are the "true" way and/or limiting their view of what a Christian really is. They don't get to decide who gets to join their club. The only way is to define "Christianity" itself and unless you actively target Mormons as non-Christians in your definition, you can't do so and exclude the Mormon faith. They're called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for a REASON...

(lunchtime, more later...but I find you're just promoting bigotry)

Let's see...

Quote

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

Nope none of that going on here. I'm not saying anything bad about Mormons. Just trying to help you see the error in your line of thinking that they should be classified Christians. Besides I'm not even the one who came screaming in here that they weren't. Someone asked a question about why they weren't considered Christians by pretty much every Christian denomination and I went and tried to find an answer for them.

So try not to get me confused with ATB, mmmkay?

As for the pages you linked - - Yes - you can find pages on the internet that will support any belief or argument but seriously take a look at the pages you linked to.. do you really think any of those are credible sources outside of possibly the carm one (which is talking about jehovahs witnesses - another religion that is considered to be outside of Christian beliefs). I mean an AOL page? Really?

As for Catholics - It's important to understand that there is a huge difference between the catholic church as we see it here in America or Europe and the catholic church down in places like South America. I spent a summer in Paraguay and was amazed at what people were taught / believe down there. Here though, I have many catholic friends that I fully believe are saved and going to heaven. I also have some that I wonder about. But that's not strange - I have friends in Church that I sometimes wonder if they really are saved or not. And i don't mean that in a judgmental way - after all - there's no way for me to ever know but the simple truth is that some people simply have gone to church their whole lives without ever having come to saving relationship with Christ That's between them and God.

But anyways back to the discussion -- believing in Christ is not the sole definition of a Christian. The bible says that even demons believe that -- would that make a demon a Christian?

Or reversing your argument - Could I refuse to accept the Mormon bible yet still have every right to call myself a Mormon?

or call my wifes Ford Focus a Porsche because they both drive on the road and require gas to go.

Just because there are similarities between two things doesn't make them the same. Mormons are Mormons and Christians are Christians.

But anyways back to the discussion -- believing in Christ is not the sole definition of a Christian. The bible says that even demons believe that -- would that make a demon a Christian?

Um, actually, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is the sole definition of a Christian. Everything else - and I do mean everything - is semantics. So if a Demon accepted Jesus in that role (interesting and entirely absurd example), yes he/she/it would be.

Quote from: DarkEL on January 25, 2008, 05:30:07 PM

Or reversing your argument - Could I refuse to accept the Mormon bible yet still have every right to call myself a Mormon?

False and faulty analogy. Believing something in addition to (i.e., the Book of Mormon) is not the same thing as not believing something.

Quote from: DarkEL on January 25, 2008, 05:30:07 PM

or call my wifes Ford Focus a Porsche because they both drive on the road and require gas to go.

Again, a ludicrous and false analogy. This one doesn't even deserve a response.

Quote from: DarkEL on January 25, 2008, 05:30:07 PM

Just because there are similarities between two things doesn't make them the same. Mormons are Mormons and Christians are Christians.

Why does that difference bother you so much?

Again, another false and really lousy analogy. Here's your logic:

A = CB = CTherefore, A = B

This is where you go wrong, and your last statement proves it. There is no "Christians are Christians".

A is part of CB is part of CIn this case, A does not have to equal B (although it can).

Christians is a group, a category of a number of faiths that share a commonality - the simple belief that Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That's it. Period. End of discussion. Mormons fall into this catgory. Period. End of discussion. Unless you can define Christianity as something else, you have no arguable points at all.

Well BlackAdar I can see that there is not going to be any way to help you understand since your mind is already made up and you refuse to accept any information that would contradict what you want to believe. I could continue to try and refute your responses but obviously it's pointless because you don't seem to either understand or value evidence and logic. Your responses all seem motivated by some deeper internal issues.

My only reason for posting here was to help some people understand what the theological reason behind some questions they might have. I'm not trying to "convert" anybody and convince them to believe a certain way. Someone asked a question as to why Mormons were not considered to be Christian. I provided an answer based upon facts and you wanted to turn that into an argument for no reason other than because you didn't like the outcome.

Unfortunately I'm not interested in getting into huge, drawn out arguments that will never end because one person doesn't like the answers (or more likely is having some personal issues and wants to take it out by lashing out at something)

As a final note I did find it kind of funny that your last comment was anA=BB=CTherefore A=C argument considering that it's pretty similar to what you were wanting to try and prove the whole time.Christian believe in the ChristMormons believe in a ChristTherefore Mormons = Christians

But at the end of the day - guess what. It doesn't really matter what you want to call them. So go ahead and call mormons christians - have fun with it. Enjoy yourself.

But at the end of the day - guess what. It doesn't really matter what you want to call them. So go ahead and call mormons christians - have fun with it. Enjoy yourself.

Well that's the interesting part, it does matter to most religions. The firm denial here is evidences enough of that. Every religion wants to think it is the one true one that makes them the real Christians, but by definition, they are all Christians, and that seems to piss people off.

But at the end of the day - guess what. It doesn't really matter what you want to call them. So go ahead and call mormons christians - have fun with it. Enjoy yourself.

Well that's the interesting part, it does matter to most religions. The firm denial here is evidences enough of that. Every religion wants to think it is the one true one that makes them the real Christians, but by definition, they are all Christians, and that seems to piss people off.

Right - and if you're religious, you obviously have a vested interest in believing your particular flavor is The One True Variant because, if you didn't, you'd be dooming yourself to whatever eternal torment you happen to subscribe to.

Quote from: DarkEL

Christian believe in the ChristMormons believe in a ChristTherefore Mormons = Christians

No, mormons believe in the same Christ, but they add some material. There's plenty of examples of other Christian sects that subscribe to stuff that's not in the King James version of the bible, which, in its 1611 edition, included a bunch of material that's no longer in it.

You're welcome to redefine Christian to have more strenuous requirements for admittance, but you're going to start cutting out anglicans, baptists, catholics, and quakers pretty quickly. Maybe that's okay with you.

But at the end of the day - guess what. It doesn't really matter what you want to call them. So go ahead and call mormons christians - have fun with it. Enjoy yourself.

Well that's the interesting part, it does matter to most religions. The firm denial here is evidences enough of that. Every religion wants to think it is the one true one that makes them the real Christians, but by definition, they are all Christians, and that seems to piss people off.

Right - and if you're religious, you obviously have a vested interest in believing your particular flavor is The One True Variant because, if you didn't, you'd be dooming yourself to whatever eternal torment you happen to subscribe to.

Maybe I'm confused but I didn't think that's what we were talking about at all. I don't remember anyone saying that Mormons or other religions were going to Hell (and I know that I didn't say anything like that)

We were talking about why Mormons are not considered Christians.

Quote from: Brendan on January 25, 2008, 08:53:47 PM

Quote from: DarkEL

Christian believe in the ChristMormons believe in a ChristTherefore Mormons = Christians

No, mormons believe in the same Christ, but they add some material. There's plenty of examples of other Christian sects that subscribe to stuff that's not in the King James version of the bible, which, in its 1611 edition, included a bunch of material that's no longer in it.

You're welcome to redefine Christian to have more strenuous requirements for admittance, but you're going to start cutting out anglicans, baptists, catholics, and quakers pretty quickly. Maybe that's okay with you.

In a sense every religion on Earth believes in Christ because there is solid evidence that he was a man that lived and taught large groups of people about God.

But it's more than just believing that he existed but it goes down to the root of who a person believes Jesus is that defines if a person is a Christian or not.

From the article I originally liked to -- Mormons believe that Jesus is an "elder brother who has ascended to Godhood", and that all can become godsChristians believe that Jesus is God and that there is only one God.

Mormons believe that salvation is earned through obedience to Mormon commandsChristians believe that salvation is earned through accepting what Jesus accomplished and entering into a relationship with him

Maybe I'm confused but I didn't think that's what we were talking about at all. I don't remember anyone saying that Mormons or other religions were going to Hell (and I know that I didn't say anything like that)

We were talking about why Mormons are not considered Christians.

Not considered Christians - by you and your particular sect. They consider themselves part of a restoration of the Christian church, just like every other variant of Christianity around.

Maybe I'm confused but I didn't think that's what we were talking about at all. I don't remember anyone saying that Mormons or other religions were going to Hell (and I know that I didn't say anything like that)

We were talking about why Mormons are not considered Christians.

Not considered Christians - by you and your particular sect. They consider themselves part of a restoration of the Christian church, just like every other variant of Christianity around.

Let me be more clear - we were discussing why they have been declared as not being Christian by pretty much every Christian denomination.

I never once experssed my personal beliefs in the matter so don't go trying to find something that wasn't there.

Someone asked a question - and I gave them an "official answer" and then tried to help people understand why that answer is that way. That's all.

Christian believe in the ChristMormons believe in a ChristTherefore Mormons = Christians

But at the end of the day - guess what. It doesn't really matter what you want to call them. So go ahead and call mormons christians - have fun with it. Enjoy yourself.

You still don't get it. There is no "Christian" donomination. "Christians" = various religions that believe in Christ as God. I.e., a category of varying religions that make up that faith. You don't go to a "Christian" Church. You can go to an Adventists, Anabaptist, Anglican, Baptist, Calvinist, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Independent, Jehovah's Witness, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Quaker, Russian Orthodox, Unitarian or Wesleyan Church, all which are sects that make up "Christianity".

Christian believe in the ChristMormons believe in a ChristTherefore Mormons = Christians

But at the end of the day - guess what. It doesn't really matter what you want to call them. So go ahead and call mormons christians - have fun with it. Enjoy yourself.

You still don't get it. There is no "Christian" donomination. "Christians" = various religions that believe in Christ as God. I.e., a category of varying religions that make up that faith. You don't go to a "Christian" Church. You can go to an Adventists, Anabaptist, Anglican, Baptist, Calvinist, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Independent, Jehovah's Witness, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Quaker, Russian Orthodox, Unitarian or Wesleyan Church, all which are sects that make up "Christianity".

I.e., your post above is fundamentally illogical and invalid.

No the point is you don't get it and you won't listen. You keep trying to make it sound like I've said things that might support your flawed belief system, but I'm not interested in playing so buh-bye. If ignorance is bliss - you must be a very happy person.

Quote from: Blackadar on January 25, 2008, 09:56:28 PM

Quote from: DarkEL

In a sense every religion on Earth believes in Christ

You need to rethink this statement.

You might try reading the rest of the sentence. The point was there's no denying that Jesus Christ was a real person who lived, etc.

However it's what they believe about him that makes the big difference (i.e. was he God, was a god, was a great teacher, was a prophet, was a liar, was he insane, etc, etc, etc, etc)

You still don't get it. There is no "Christian" donomination. "Christians" = various religions that believe in Christ as God. I.e....Jehovah's Witness...all which are sects that make up "Christianity".

Oh I know you didn't just say JW are Christians! You are going to have Drazzel and ATB on your ass now.

No the point is you don't get it and you won't listen. You keep trying to make it sound like I've said things that might support your flawed belief system, but I'm not interested in playing so buh-bye. If ignorance is bliss - you must be a very happy person.

Sorry, I'm not the one here who doesn't understand the difference between a religion (Christianity) and a denomination. But I guess it must scare you to have your belief system challenged in such a manner, so I'm not surprised that your brain can't grasp the difference. A lifetime of blindly following a specific doctrine will do that to a lesser mind.

No the point is you don't get it and you won't listen. You keep trying to make it sound like I've said things that might support your flawed belief system, but I'm not interested in playing so buh-bye. If ignorance is bliss - you must be a very happy person.

Sorry, I'm not the one here who doesn't understand the difference between a religion (Christianity) and a denomination. But I guess it must scare you to have your belief system challenged in such a manner, so I'm not surprised that your brain can't grasp the difference. A lifetime of blindly following a specific doctrine will do that to a lesser mind.

Someone asked a question - and I gave them an "official answer" and then tried to help people understand why that answer is that way. That's all.

There's no unifying certification body for "Christian" churches, therefore there's no "official answer." It's all delightfully subjective - which is fine - but don't try to pretend that there's an objective answer.

Mormons self-identify as part of the Christian tradition. Some denominations (like yours, apparently) don't accept their self-identification as valid. Your denomination, though, is also self-identifying as Christian. There's the rub. I guess it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, Catholics, and Baptists, because one can easily find scriptural divergences from whatever you were raised in. In your belief system, are they "close enough" for God's purposes?